Jury rules Cisco owes $70 million for patent fraud

XpertUniverse Inc says the networking company used its patented tech illegally.

On Friday evening, a jury ruled that Cisco owes patent licenser XpertUniverse Inc $70 million in damages for obtaining patented technology in a fraudulent manner, Reuters reported. The jury ruled that Cisco owed an additional $34,000 for violating two XpertUniverse patents, as well.

XpertUniverse, a New York-based company, brought the case in the US District Court of Delaware. The company said that Cisco violated non-disclosure terms agreed upon when the two organizations started working together in 2004. The agreement stated “Cisco would distribute technology XpertUniverse had developed to efficiently match customers with call center experts,” wrote Reuters.

Cisco ended the relationship in 2007 and one year later launched its “Expert on Demand” service that, for example, a company might use to set up a hotline for its customers. XpertUniverse brought its suit in 2009.

There are two patents at issue in the case. The first is patent number 7366709 (the '709 patent), which is described as a “system and method for managing questions and answers using subject lists styles.” The second is patent number 7499903 (the '903 patent), which covers “semantic to non-semantic routing for locating a live expert.” Both of these deal with matching human inquiries with the right information from a database, or connecting that human with a subject matter expert.

Cisco told Reuters it was “extremely disappointed” with the verdict, and the company will appeal if the judge lets the current award stand. On the other side, an attorney from XpertUniverse said the company was "obviously very happy" with the verdict.

i sense its tip of the iceberg of problems heading Cisco's way. Since the founders left, Cisco innovations have seemed to focus on reducing competition, not in gaining ground through innovation. Eventually that course seems to lead to 'adopting' other Intellectual property. How do people actually 'see' into a router.

While I'm not all that keen on software and business method patents, I'm even less keen on big businesses screwing little ones and relying on the "we're big and powerful and you're not, so don't even bother complaining" route.

Patent number 7366709 describes the workings of an Expert System. Systems providing medical diagnoses or managing human resources comes to mind. Literature on Expert Systems goes back to the 1970s, and perhaps before.

Patent number 7366709 describes the workings of an Expert System. Systems providing medical diagnoses or managing human resources comes to mind. Literature on Expert Systems goes back to the 1970s, and perhaps before.

Is there anything 'novel' in their particular implementation of an expert system?

Patent number 7366709 describes the workings of an Expert System. Systems providing medical diagnoses or managing human resources comes to mind. Literature on Expert Systems goes back to the 1970s, and perhaps before.

Is there anything 'novel' in their particular implementation of an expert system?

Their system is apparently even less novel than a full-blown Expert System. Their system includes a knowledge base while their inference engine, the latter which is paramount for the novelty or else effectiveness of an Expert System, is apparently based on a very simple form of predicate logic. Without the inference engine, an Expert System is more akin to a Knowledge System or even a 'regular' database. In any case, it's less novel than most every Expert System I've come across, at least when it comes to its vaguely described inference engine.

If the patent had described some aspect of the 'invention' that offsets it from other aspects of an Expert or Knowledge System, then there could have been some discernible novelty in the patent. The only 'novelty' the patent is describing is that a search may end with a human expert who matches the accumulation of search criteria. That's not that different from Expert Systems dealing with human resources.

Considering how this is my field, I have a tendency to question the standing of just about anyone who brings suit against Cisco with patents relating to intelligent routing in a call center. Those patents are very new. I'm honestly surprised they managed to lose. ICM and CVP are not new technologies. ICM is a product created by a company called Geotel and was originally known as Intelligent Call Router. Geotel was purchased by Cisco and that product predates those patents by nearly twenty years. Things like Remote Expert and Expert Advisor are just different ways of leveraging ICM and CVP. Personally I could see it easily defendable for Cisco. I guess maybe to someone outside that industry it's not as cut and dry.

“system and method for managing questions and answers using subject lists styles"

Really?

I was thinking the same thing. Its something I do for my business as well. i created my customer service q and a list from scratch. I had no idea it was patentable or even available. Not that the service would meet my needs, but these patents are ridiculous.

Considering how this is my field, I have a tendency to question the standing of just about anyone who brings suit against Cisco with patents relating to intelligent routing in a call center. Those patents are very new. I'm honestly surprised they managed to lose. ICM and CVP are not new technologies. ICM is a product created by a company called Geotel and was originally known as Intelligent Call Router. Geotel was purchased by Cisco and that product predates those patents by nearly twenty years. Things like Remote Expert and Expert Advisor are just different ways of leveraging ICM and CVP. Personally I could see it easily defendable for Cisco. I guess maybe to someone outside that industry it's not as cut and dry.

I can't disagree with your propositions, but upon closer examination, Cisco had entered an agreement of a non-disclosure character with XU. XU was basically supplying technology and knowledge to Cisco. Although there are patents involved, the damages Cisco is paying for patent infringement is $ 34,000. The bulk of the damages seem to arise out of Cisco violating the agreement between them and XU. That agreement deals with patents as well as trade secrets. For that agreement (violation), the $ 70 million in damages has been awarded.

It's confusing because the agreement covers patents and trade secrets and the reporting as well as the legal claims don't discern between patents and trade secrets for which damages (of $ 70 million) have been awarded. The (non-disclosure) agreement between XU and Cisco may clarify the confusion, although I haven't read this agreement and I'm unsure whether this agreement is accessible.

Considering how this is my field, I have a tendency to question the standing of just about anyone who brings suit against Cisco with patents relating to intelligent routing in a call center. Those patents are very new. I'm honestly surprised they managed to lose. ICM and CVP are not new technologies. ICM is a product created by a company called Geotel and was originally known as Intelligent Call Router. Geotel was purchased by Cisco and that product predates those patents by nearly twenty years. Things like Remote Expert and Expert Advisor are just different ways of leveraging ICM and CVP. Personally I could see it easily defendable for Cisco. I guess maybe to someone outside that industry it's not as cut and dry.

I can't disagree with your propositions, but upon closer examination, Cisco had entered an agreement of a non-disclosure character with XU. XU was basically supplying technology and knowledge to Cisco. Although there are patents involved, the damages Cisco is paying for patent infringement is $ 34,000. The bulk of the damages seem to arise out of Cisco violating the agreement between them and XU. That agreement deals with patents as well as trade secrets. For that agreement (violation), the $ 70 million in damages has been awarded.

It's confusing because the agreement covers patents and trade secrets and the reporting as well as the legal claims don't discern between patents and trade secrets for which damages (of $ 70 million) have been awarded. The (non-disclosure) agreement between XU and Cisco may clarify the confusion, although I haven't read this agreement and I'm unsure whether this agreement is accessible.

This is no small part of why Cisco has been moving away from these kinds of relationships. It's a dangerous game for both sides. If you're the partner coming in and having Cisco white label your software you have the risk of theft of intellectual property. If you're Cisco you run the risk of having the partner drop the ball and not sufficiently deliver. Not only is that bad for Cisco because they are taking a direct black eye because of a third party largely out of your control, but then if you terminate that relationship and bring the solution in house you run the risk of this situation.

Whenever I see Cisco get sued it makes me giggle. They are like the Romans. Spread to thin in every technology to defend their core. Their nexus line sux bad. If you need network gear I recommend juniper.

“system and method for managing questions and answers using subject lists styles"

Really?

I have no familiarity with the case, but folks like you keep making the same mistake, thinking the summary description must somehow communicate the innovative differences within the invention. But that's not the job of the patent title or summary; it's the job of the claims. Which are rarely quoted or discussed in these forums.

If someone invents a better and far efficient more engine for cars, the invention could still be summarized as "system and method for propelling a wheeled vehicle." A better mousetrap could be summarized as "mechanism for efficient rodent termination." And so on.

So I don't know, in this particular case. But "yeah, really!" seems like all the reply an argument of this depth and breadth deserves.

While the patents might be questionable, I'm not that surprised to see a result like this when it looks like Cisco worked with the company and then cut ties and kept using the same technology/approach covered by the patent anyway.